03 cobra VS S2000...
11-02-2006, 11:25 PM
#41
TECH Resident
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to beat a go-kart in the handling department as well, but you
wouldn't catch me pimping one.
wouldn't catch me pimping one.
11-03-2006, 02:20 AM
#43
TECH Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ Haha think what you want, but when we had our 03 S I didnt lose to 1 99-04 GT. Hmm, lets see 20 hp less and what 600lbs lighter. I dont even remember how many I beat had to be 10+, it wasnt even fun anymore.
11-06-2006, 03:17 PM
#44
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
What do you consider low boost? And what SCR are you running?
What octane fuel?
Any chance of posting the dyno graph. Was it SAE corrected? And what type of Dyno? Do you have any other mods apart from the turbo?
Sorry for all the questions, but with a decent (read not basic or low boost) turbo setup I can believe that sort of figure, but not with a blower. But think about it, the S2000 only has a 2.0 16v DOHC, nothing particulary different from an Evo or Cosworth.
Now even a stock 330bhp Evo is by no means tame and requires servicing every 6000 miles. You're claim of ~470rwhp is near 500bhp. That's an awful high state of tune (250bhp/litre).
Now I know it's possible, but I really don't believe its easy with a fully reliable/durable engine only running low boost. Either that or the horses used to measure the engine where more like Shetland ponies instead of Shire horses.
I mean if a 2003/4 Cobra was tuned to the same state it would be producing 1150bhp. Which is possible, but again not easy and really viable as an every day reliable setup.
What octane fuel?
Any chance of posting the dyno graph. Was it SAE corrected? And what type of Dyno? Do you have any other mods apart from the turbo?
Sorry for all the questions, but with a decent (read not basic or low boost) turbo setup I can believe that sort of figure, but not with a blower. But think about it, the S2000 only has a 2.0 16v DOHC, nothing particulary different from an Evo or Cosworth.
Now even a stock 330bhp Evo is by no means tame and requires servicing every 6000 miles. You're claim of ~470rwhp is near 500bhp. That's an awful high state of tune (250bhp/litre).
Now I know it's possible, but I really don't believe its easy with a fully reliable/durable engine only running low boost. Either that or the horses used to measure the engine where more like Shetland ponies instead of Shire horses.
I mean if a 2003/4 Cobra was tuned to the same state it would be producing 1150bhp. Which is possible, but again not easy and really viable as an every day reliable setup.
also, it was 457rwhp, i was wrong. No matter, that was with a blown headgasket
Last edited by BLACKTURBOS2K; 11-06-2006 at 03:53 PM.
11-06-2006, 03:33 PM
#46
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TransAminal
Nice kill man.
S2000's are a joke, they can't even keep up with 99-04 GT's.
S2000's are a joke, they can't even keep up with 99-04 GT's.
you have no idea what you are talking about
Last edited by BLACKTURBOS2K; 11-06-2006 at 03:52 PM.
11-06-2006, 04:07 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
you have no idea what you are talking about
S2000's are a joke, paying $35K for an N/A 4 banger is retarded. They are even with 99-04 Mustang GT's, because the Mustang has this thing called TORQUE and it doesn't fall flat on its face when you try and launch. S2000's run low 14's in the 1/4, and 0-60 in about 5.7 seconds. Same as the 99-04 GT's.
Haha think what you want, but when we had our 03 S I didnt lose to 1 99-04 GT. Hmm, lets see 20 hp less and what 600lbs lighter. I dont even remember how many I beat had to be 10+, it wasnt even fun anymore.
600lbs doesn't mean jack **** when your car has the powerband of a sports bike and makes no torque and no power until 6K RPM. Get a clue.
11-07-2006, 12:41 AM
#50
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TransAminal
You always have a story about how great some import was. Give it a rest, we know you're making it up anyway
600lbs doesn't mean jack **** when your car has the powerband of a sports bike and makes no torque and no power until 6K RPM. Get a clue.
600lbs doesn't mean jack **** when your car has the powerband of a sports bike and makes no torque and no power until 6K RPM. Get a clue.
I agree with your statement of 'no torque' however, I disagree with you 600 lbs doesnt' mean jack.......any advantage to TQ the stang has, is gone with it dragging the extra 600#....even with a better powerband.
11-07-2006, 03:30 AM
#51
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by TransAminal
S2000's are a joke, paying $35K for an N/A 4 banger is retarded.
11-07-2006, 10:24 AM
#52
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TransAminal
Another ricer buried in his own ignorance.
S2000's are a joke, paying $35K for an N/A 4 banger is retarded. They are even with 99-04 Mustang GT's, because the Mustang has this thing called TORQUE and it doesn't fall flat on its face when you try and launch. S2000's run low 14's in the 1/4, and 0-60 in about 5.7 seconds. Same as the 99-04 GT's.
You always have a story about how great some import was. Give it a rest, we know you're making it up anyway
600lbs doesn't mean jack **** when your car has the powerband of a sports bike and makes no torque and no power until 6K RPM. Get a clue.
S2000's are a joke, paying $35K for an N/A 4 banger is retarded. They are even with 99-04 Mustang GT's, because the Mustang has this thing called TORQUE and it doesn't fall flat on its face when you try and launch. S2000's run low 14's in the 1/4, and 0-60 in about 5.7 seconds. Same as the 99-04 GT's.
You always have a story about how great some import was. Give it a rest, we know you're making it up anyway
600lbs doesn't mean jack **** when your car has the powerband of a sports bike and makes no torque and no power until 6K RPM. Get a clue.
We are on here talking about cars and every time some hick *** red neck, I ASSume this because you have a V8 and Im a ricer because I have a 4cly, will come on here and say something dumb. I have raced MANY V8s and have only lost 1 time, I missed 5th. And that was to a c6 vett with cam,I,H,E and a 175shot.
11-07-2006, 10:45 AM
#54
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he refers stock vs. stock, the S2000 is extremly underpowered for the price......every magazine review had that as its main complaint, its almost ike a smaller acura NSX
11-07-2006, 12:45 PM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
No my friend, it's you that's retarded for only having the interlect of a boiled potato
11-07-2006, 12:48 PM
#56
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
I have never lost to a 220hp GT, stock vs stock. So Im not sure what you are talking about. Your the one that looks like the RICE
We are on here talking about cars and every time some hick *** red neck, I ASSume this because you have a V8 and Im a ricer because I have a 4cly, will come on here and say something dumb. I have raced MANY V8s and have only lost 1 time, I missed 5th. And that was to a c6 vett with cam,I,H,E and a 175shot.
We are on here talking about cars and every time some hick *** red neck, I ASSume this because you have a V8 and Im a ricer because I have a 4cly, will come on here and say something dumb. I have raced MANY V8s and have only lost 1 time, I missed 5th. And that was to a c6 vett with cam,I,H,E and a 175shot.
Take your rice somewhere else, you can brag about how fast your car is, but its still just a gutless 4 banger that sounds like ***. Congrats, now stop talking about things you have no clue about.
11-07-2006, 01:19 PM
#57
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLACKTURBOS2K
I have never lost to a 220hp GT, stock vs stock. So Im not sure what you are talking about. Your the one that looks like the RICE
We are on here talking about cars and every time some hick *** red neck, I ASSume this because you have a V8 and Im a ricer because I have a 4cly, will come on here and say something dumb. I have raced MANY V8s and have only lost 1 time, I missed 5th. And that was to a c6 vett with cam,I,H,E and a 175shot.
We are on here talking about cars and every time some hick *** red neck, I ASSume this because you have a V8 and Im a ricer because I have a 4cly, will come on here and say something dumb. I have raced MANY V8s and have only lost 1 time, I missed 5th. And that was to a c6 vett with cam,I,H,E and a 175shot.
11-07-2006, 01:26 PM
#58
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TransAminal
You're such a dumb ricer that you don't even have a clue about the vehicle you are talking about. I said 99-04 Mustang GT, they have a 260HP 4.6L V8 with 302ft/lbs of torque. Not 220HP, if it had 220 obviously an S2000 would be faster.
Take your rice somewhere else, you can brag about how fast your car is, but its still just a gutless 4 banger that sounds like ***. Congrats, now stop talking about things you have no clue about.
Take your rice somewhere else, you can brag about how fast your car is, but its still just a gutless 4 banger that sounds like ***. Congrats, now stop talking about things you have no clue about.
No matter, if you live near me we can run and you can listen to my little 4 banger, it just sounds like a jet
I assume you have a VERY fast car, because you do talk alot of ****. Let me know if your down
11-07-2006, 01:38 PM
#59
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sterling VA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GMmexican
so your only loss was to a h/c ls1?........so what did u race before bolt on/cam only cars, k/n &flowmaster cars?
I have raced a T/A with stall, cam, IHE and tires. A stock C6, C5 ZO6, and the other C6. I have also raced alot of Mustangs and Mach 1s.
Im not really sure how its hard to belive a car can be fast. With the right amount of $ anything can be fast. I ran a 11.3 @ 127 on bone stock street tires, 225-50-16 and I ran a 7.3 @ 101mph in the 1/8th
11-07-2006, 01:43 PM
#60
Originally Posted by TransAminal
You're such a dumb ricer that you don't even have a clue about the vehicle you are talking about. I said 99-04 Mustang GT, they have a 260HP 4.6L V8 with 302ft/lbs of torque. Not 220HP, if it had 220 obviously an S2000 would be faster.
Take your rice somewhere else, you can brag about how fast your car is, but its still just a gutless 4 banger that sounds like ***. Congrats, now stop talking about things you have no clue about.
Take your rice somewhere else, you can brag about how fast your car is, but its still just a gutless 4 banger that sounds like ***. Congrats, now stop talking about things you have no clue about.